Logging on our National Forests

Darren J. Young dyoung at mcwi.com
Mon Nov 10 14:16:36 EST 1997

In article <34674440.0 at news.pacifier.com>, dhogaza at pacifier.com says...
> >Back at you.  No matter how good the job, somebody will always want more 
> >and file law suits.
> How can a government agency do a good job when it routinely breaks the law,
> as the USFS has done?

They can't which is exactly why most things that are done by the 
government end up turning all cow shit.  It's not just the USFS.

>  The agency has publicly admitted to having cut at
> about twice the sustainable yield rate in Region 6 (OR/WA) during the Reagan
> administration, despite the fact that the NFMA mandates sustainable yield
> management.

And I certainly wouldn't advocate this practice either. BTW, I'm reading 
from alt.great-lakes where the topic isn't OR/WA.  Rather Muskie was 
rather unsuccessful at defending some of his opinions so he's now cross 
posting again so others will a little more insight than he can hopeful 
help him out.

> >It's the way this country is run.  Happens in the 
> >forestry industry just like every other segment of society.
> If you believe that we should accept routine lawbreaking by federal
> agencies as a way of life, God help America.

Accept it or not, it's a fact.  If you want to discuss changing the 
political system of our government, you'll have to do it with someone 
else as I'm not willing to get into that here.

> >So are you saying that because it's poorly managed it produces more than 
> >had it been managed responsibly?  You're not making any sense.
> He means poorly managed from the conservation point of view.  The fact
> that conservation is not part of a corporation's mission leads them to
> more intensly manage their forests for wood products.  Which is the way
> it should be.  Federal agencies

I don't know what you are saying here.  What's the way it should be, more 
intensely managed forests or more conservation?  As well, looks like you 
lost your train of thought on the "Federal agencies" sentence.

> now that production is slowly increasing?  And, long before tripling occurs
> (at least, tripling due to material costs as opposed to tripling due to
> other reasons) it will be economical to replace wood frame construction with
> steel stud construction, as currently is done in many jurisdictions for commercial
> building (for fire reasons).

Except for the simple fact that Muskie just posted an article against a 
proposed sedimentation pond for a iron mine in the UP.  That's my whole 
point.  You make on person (or group) happy and you'll end up stepping on 
the toes of others even if it's the intention.  All this dancing around 
inevitably make people end up saying "the hell with it, I'll do what I 
want" which is unfortunate.

> >I'm sure the folks there appreciate this dreadful thread.
> If you made sense, it wouldn't be quite so dreadful, would it?

Well if you start applying your thoughts and situations (OR/WA area) into 
the comments I made about the UP (northern WI/MI area) of course they 
won't make sense because the situations are not at all similar which is 
ultimately why this bill (as well as most things the government touches) 
will have it's desired effect.  There's exists no "fix all" solution yet 
people keep trying to make them.

| Darren J. Young              |  Minnesota CADWorks, Inc.          |
|             dyoung at mcwi.com  |  P.O. Box 7293                     |
|          ftp://ftp.mcwi.com  |  St. Cloud, Minnesota 56302-7293   |
|         http://www.mcwi.com  |  Phone: 1-320-654-9053             |
| CAD/CAM/CNC - Drafting Design Customization Training Programming  |
Email addresses not to be sold or used for unsolicited advertisements

No responses will be made to users with altered Email addresses
intended to block SPAM. It takes longer to edit them then hit delete!

More information about the Ag-forst mailing list